So um the preliminary results for the spring 2025 open house are laid out here for you explains the layout of the session and it's attempted to be a mix of quantitative and qualitative data. So if you look at um the three goal areas that we have, we asked our attendees to rate goals from 1 to 5 and strategies from 1 to five and then we asked for their feedback and their priorities. So you can see their the average score for each one and then you can see uh a summary here of what people said. I wouldn't say that there are new arguments or thoughts or concerns being brought to us. Um I think when you read through this it will all sound very familiar to you. I think another thing to point out is there's no really strong consensus on anything. So even when there were um 188 open responses um you can see here the highest kind of concentration of comments was 27 comments kind of surrounding density and 20 opposed.
So many of these when we went through and tagged them had very few um people mentioning them over and over again. So that rem that remains a challenge I would say. Um there are also several people that attended. I think we had about 120 to 150 at each event. Um so not everyone who came left comments. Many people came I think to have conversations with staff, with planning commissioners, and with council members. Um they've all been encouraged to submit this. I tried to remind everyone that I'm having dozens of conversations. It's the most helpful for me if it's in written form because then I can digest it and summarize it and share it back with the with the planning commission. Um, so here is your summary for that.
I'm happy to take any questions if you have any or if you'd like me to go through it more thoroughly. Okay. No, I think we're good. Okay. We went through the same exercise with the future land use map. That was only in person. that is not continuing online. So that is final. Um we took a look at where there were concentrations of comments. So you can see there's four major areas there. Again, there wasn't like I think there was almost 200 comments. It's not like there was a vast majority in one area. It's spread across the city. Um, and I believe the main areas we talked about were Miller, um, Burns Park, Plymouth, and Nixon, and then the flex district, which has already been changed. Um, so those are summary for that as well. Um, this can just be added to our collection of responses that we've received from residents and perhaps added to an appendix or, you know, recorded somewhere publicly.
Got it. Thank you. So, that's everything for your packet. I think we can go on to editing now. Brett, do you mind pulling up the um draft so we can put it on the screen again? Okay. So, in your packet as well, you should have a running list of all the edits. I encourage you to make sure that you think Brett and I are recording those accurately. Um, but this is a running list since we started. Um, and just so we're clear, when we meet with our consultants this week to talk about editing this document, I am going to probably create priorities like as in the ones that we've discussed publicly. I'm going to say to make sure that those are done, that staff's edits are done where they align with you. And then if they have time before the second draft to get to all of the other comments that you all submitted that we didn't necessarily discuss publicly, but they might have been smaller edits like changed residential to neighborhood or something like that along those lines.
I don't when I Oh, sorry. You Yeah, go ahead. Uh, Commissioner Mills, a as I was going back through here, um, the questions that you had for us for chapter 5 that we are continuing to discuss tonight are on the top of page 8. Do you feel like you have solid answers from us on there? Because there's some of these that I feel like I don't and maybe I was just tired. But like, do we want to define or how are we thinking about low, mid, and high density, for example? like I don't know that we talked if we talked about that I was not I don't think we've explicitly touched on that. Um but I suppose we can we can do that today now that we're kind of wrapping up chapter 5. Um, and that primarily came from residents concern or interest for more information because during engagement and during earlier stages of this process, we did attach like height ranges to things and so you'll still hear people say like, "Well, I don't want a transition zone that's seven stories high near my house.
Even though seven stories is not written in the plan, that was a number that was discussed." Um, and I think it may have been you, Commissioner Mills, who wanted to maybe have some more definitions about what these things mean. So, I I did add it in here, and that's for you all to decide if you want when we say, you know, low-rise residential, what do we mean? So, we know that's three stories, but we don't have that same level with the other areas. And so that's for you all to decide if you want to be consistent with that or if you felt like it might be more pressing, you know, and that we could leave it just for residential. It wasn't just that one too. There's others about uh I think we talked about the infrastructure constraints and we had a conversation about that one last time.
But in terms of level of detail, again, what we're hearing is about design and I think we haven't really had a convers like we don't there's not tons about that in the current draft. And so how is that something that we want to include in the comprehensive plan and what and where would it belong? And similarly the the fourth of your bullets about keeping the number of homes which I think or keep a limit of the number of homes or expand on how that would be regulated by design. Like that's something too that I don't I don't have clarity on which again maybe that's on me. Well, I think we've been clear about not wanting to regulate by the number of units, right? Um, and then I think the way the plan is discussed now, it just mentions regulating by form using formbbased code. Um, so if that's sufficient for you all, we can leave it at that.
I know many residents are unfamiliar with what that means. So, we could spell it out more. Last week, I proposed a change regulated by form and dimensional, right? which is in here uh at the bottom of page nine. Page 109. No limit of homes change to scale and density regulated by form or dimensional requirements as appropriate. Yes. Okay. Thank you for reminding me of that. We did record that. So that's that's currently how you are all have decided how you want to describe what the residential district would be. Can we give some examples of what form and dimensional standards are? Because there was there was an exchange last night at the library of someone who was very concerned about what formbbased housing was and I think was maybe confused about prefab housing and form-based zoning. It was it was very confusing and um not easy to it was not easy to wade through.
In fact, I think it never got resolved. So even just some examples we've you know um so I mean setbacks right are right setbacks height lock coverage um what are some other major ones could be floor area ratio that is definitely not hard not not not easy those are just yeah but lot coverage is helpful I think leave out floor area ratio because that'll just spin their heads Yeah. And setbacks, right? Absolutely. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. There was similarly a conversation about lot combinations. And I know we've talked about I don't see anything. Is there anything about lot combinations? I think the problem with that I mean maybe we can but it's just this is where I then begin to get very con confused or just because the geographies of even within wards but definitely across wards are so different that if we were trying to regulate how much you could develop on in low-rise residential and we talked about lot combinations if we give any kind of number, it immediately is nuts because in my neighborhood you wouldn't want to say no more than two cuz that gives you half an acre and I can put you know an entire farm there but I'm a bad gardener so I won't.
So I mean we don't want to I don't know how that issue of not not you know preserving the rhythm of the neighborhood. I don't that's what we will do and I and I and I hesitate to Yeah. But how do we translate that? I know but well we can leave it to the planning profession. One of the things that might be helpful is to take it specifically from page 96 um to take a look at this. I feel you're going back in time. Yeah. Did we remove this page? I thought we moved this. We got rid of. Okay. Gotcha. Which version can I can I go back to the lot combination and Okay. pos the question that if if the plan and our regulatory authority successfully use form standards to quote unquote rightsize infill development to their context. Why do we care if lots are assembled or not?
I don't care. But I feel like when you say we're going to regulate based on sebex and like I think that it it is without knowing what that is. I think that there's a lot of question. It lends itself to questions and so I don't I don't necessarily know that it's just I heard I thought I heard a comment about lock combinations and I was like wait I don't remember talking about lot combinations and so like I thought it from the table and so I would propose that we focus the product on the language. It it is it it's it's challenging, right? Cuz we're going to talk about the tools that we might use to do that, but we're not identifying specifically that these tools are a 4ft setback or a x porch requirement or what have you or this lot coverage requirement. So, but I think I think putting our efforts into that rather than because if we are successful in that those being manifest on one building on one lot or 10 buildings on a massive lot should have the same outcome to that context.
Yeah, that feels right. And so like I don't like my colleagues want to talk about like lot combinations because of the topology of the city and how different neighborhoods have different um zoning or excuse me um lot lot sizes. So for instance one RA is already 20,000 ft. So once you combine that you're now up to 40,000 and you can get a lot of coverage. But if we are going excuse me uh towards a form then it shouldn't matter. It it should have this kind of same fill and presentation. And my concern and this is this is just a point of order for me to raise. I am um very concerned about the language of neighborhood. I I don't know how we talk about it. Um and I haven't held tightly to the language. I'm going to misquote uh a commissioner, but like um continuity I think is something we want to pay attention to um because some neighborhoods have been historically um sort of cordined off in the city for certain amounts of development.
And so if we accept that as an embedded structure and then we try to maintain that then what we're doing is continuing that housing segregation into the future and and that is that's something that I lighted to even in the council um uh language uh because it's the same language uh and again I am not casting aspersions on anyone who drafted that language. But it's the same language that the pro-segregationists use because it's all about slowing things down. It's all about incrementalism because what they want to do is maintain the segregation that is in place. And and so I just want to raise that uh language. And so that's why I appreciate what you have articulated, Mr. Leonard is if we go in the direction that we're talking about, it should smooth this out and it should allow us to achieve the goals that we want without embedding the housing segregation that is already present and preserving it, if you will, into uh future uh structures.
And I also have a point of order. I I thought we were on page 110 absent uh Commissioner Mills question about the top of 108 because there were four questions there that she wanted to make sure that you planner Bennett or Michelle if we're doing Michelle tonight um had questions and so I I'd like us to go back to page 110 uh cuz you know it's already 9:16. Okay. But can I Yeah. Go ahead. I don't want to belver the point. So, I had mentioned last week that I wanted we had talked two meetings ago about changing the old fourth word to transition. I checked the change log again and it still says old fourth word and old west side and I I want old west side taken out. That was not part of the that was not part of the straw poll two weeks ago.
What page was that? It's on It's just part of the map. Oh, you mean on the map? It's in your So, it's in your change log here. So if um looking for old west side hold on old fourth it says on page chap I think it's page 13 of your change log one page 101 old fourth word and old west side should be transition district. It should be old fourth word should be transition district. Oh okay just old fourth word. Yep. Um, I do have a question because I'm I'm still not quite grasping this, but if lot combinations are possible and we're not restricting by number of units, I mean, I think this is what's freaking people out is they're calling blockbusting. So, the way that we're currently discussing it that would be permitted, but blockbusting has a specific definition in history. It is about developers undermining a housing uh unit to lower the price so that they can buy it at a discount thus block busting up the the block and then reselling it at a higher price and then taking uh the profits.
That's not what I was going to make that comment to what one of the public commenters said. Um but that is not what we are imagining. We're talking about density uh that is u already restricted by council's three stories and so and if if we're in the lowrise residential we I don't I don't see why how we would see that as a block busting activity. Okay. If we if we don't use that word, if that's not the accurate word, the idea still though is that without using number of units and if lots can be combined, there could still be a lockwood a lockwood, which is the main concern that people are bringing up over and over and over again and that we haven't I don't feel like there's confirmation on if that's the direction we're going or not. Yeah, I I I guess I I guess I am hearing that conf I'm hearing that the that's the focus on the using formbbased standards to I don't know right size whatever gets built on those lots whether they're single whether they're a single lot or yeah I think I think to be clear what we're talking about is you could have somebody purchase every lot on a block in in the context of a neighborhood if if that would be possible.
But that wouldn't mean they could build a corner to corner block on that. It would still have to meet these form based standards where they would have to realize whatever density of development in the form of standards that get ultimately prescribed to regulate it. So it might it might result in taking 12 houses from a block in this most extreme case and allowing them to be replaced by 12 new structures. But under the new code, it might allow multiple units in those, but they would still have to be broken up in some way. So that's what I am hearing from the planning commission that the importance is the scaling of the structure in the context of its surroundings. It is not whether that structure is one of one on a lot or it's one of 12 on a larger lot. I mean, it's not that different than the way that in TC1 we limit building frontage, continuous building frontage or maximum block size, right?
So, there are just dimensional standards that we can impose that would prevent that. Yep. Okay. And but is that that's the shared vision? Yes. And I I I think we also should anchor this in reality, which is in order to build a Lockwood in one of these residential neighborhoods, we're looking at a $16 million land acquisition cost, which would make the cost per unit so astronomical that it would not pencil out. So, we cannot imagine every fear that someone has absent of reality. There's a there's a 4 acre lot in my neighborhood right now that is for sale that no one has bought and it is already zoned for high density. And so this idea that as soon as we permit this uh we're going to have lockwoods as if lockwoods are bad. I would love to live in a single development in my a senior development in my current neighborhood that I can still walk and get to my groceries and to my church and to my library.
Um, and I think that's the um I I I want to clarify. I think we don't necessarily have alignment. I think that I think we talked about Lockwoods not being appropriate within a neighborhood context just given the actual scale of what it feels like as you're walking and then what is the overall block length right as as you continuously walk. So it has to do with paracity and the legibility of the built environment. I think that is important um to a certain extent. So we have talked about appropriateness. So I I think we will continue to differ in that particular respect. So I think I just uh rather than using Lockwood for me um if we could look at Hoover and Green because that is in a neighborhood. It's in my neighborhood. It is a block to it is a full block. Love it. don't you know I'm it responds to the neighborhood but how would something like that rather than a lock would you know so to to actually kind of respond to that one of the ways that it's possible to do this u if you are having an kind of like a wall right like a longer block so when you have multiple block assemblies it's possible to use articulations to to create almost courtyards right where where you have kind of like setbacks in between and that that creates again the visual contrast and the kind of complexity needed.
I think what folks are or at least what I'm hearing is that there's certain um concerns with respect to like one blank wall of a single materiality that goes and spans you know 200 ft or something along those lines. But um I think using different types of materiality as well as articulations that create um it can be done in a way where it doesn't feel like a massive long lengthy block. Um essentially there's there's going to be um good enough kind of like setbacks and material standards that give that legibility. So that that is kind of a way to make that happen. Yeah. But I so I and this is a question maybe for staff and and folks who know better than I do. Once we got away from the unit-based restriction on scale and density, then it is hypothetically the case that you could have lock combinations result in a very large structure if you're regulating by dimensions or form.